Jury Nullification

v. Morgentaler’s case whereby the cited law did not adequately apply (R. v. Morgentaler, 1988). However, this has always been the norm due to the de facto power granted to juries whereby despite judge’s role of instructing and advising them to act based on the law in question cannot interfere with their final verdicts. For instance, in R. v. Morgentaler’s case the accused were acquitted after the jury found s.251, which they argued violated women’s privileges was true and did not in anyway seem to hold them accountable for their actions. In most cases, jury nullification as evident in the case aforementioned prompt some individuals especially those who have done grievous crimes prefer their arbitration because they are aware of receiving fair judgments incomparable to the magnitude of their charges or all together acquitted. This is evident in R. v. Morgentaler’s case though the involved parties did not prompt the same but owing to then unfolding circumstances about laws’ interpretation disregarded the charges, hence acquitting the accused (R. v. Morgentaler, 1988). Acquittal occurs if jury finds the stated law inapplicable, oppressive as well as unpopular based on their interpretation and other aspects that may influence their irrevocable verdicts them like morality. For instance, in R. v. … What do you think of jury nullification? Despite numerous negative responses anti jury nullification, I think its role is more of upholding the execution of justice with consideration of morality. However, this in many incidences may differ with both judge and claimants’ anticipations concerning varied laws, which they cite the accused might have infringed based on the case at hand. Since, in all their undertakings and verdicts juries make certain fundamental considerations whose core purpose is to ensure fair trial of all parties involved in the case. However, due to their contrary verdicts to those of the involved parties may seem either unwise or favoring a particular party/side. This is especially evident when the jury nullifies a law that renders one guilty of having violated whereby with the aid of their interpretation pronounce it being conflicting. Hence, the accused acquitted for having done wrong as in the R. v. Morgentaler case where the claimant was very sure the specialists were quilt. However, the case overturned when the specialists cited s.251 violated women’s rights by compelling them to carry to term fetus that may in process subject them to both emotional and psychological distress (R. v. Morgentaler, 1988). This is upholding of morality, justice and vulnerable people’s rights as well as protecting those who may not have adequate knowledge concerning interpretation of a certain laws. However, with the intervention of jury the accused end up getting fair judgment or acquitted if the law is oppressive or unpopular as in the case R. v. Morgentaler where the prosecution’s side ended up using another law to defend the cited infringed law (R. v. Morgentaler, 1988). Based on my opinion, this does not imply judges compared to juries are